Skip to main content
Log in

An evaluation method of team situation awareness based on mutual belief

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large and complex artifacts are usually operated by a team for its safety and efficiency, and breakdowns of team cooperation sometimes cause accidents. Studies of team cooperation therefore have been drawn attention from human factors and ergonomics researchers. Team situation awareness (TSA) has been regarded as one of the important topics in such team cooperation studies. Definitions of TSA in such studies are, however, mainly based on the perspective of observers. Some studies have pointed out that it is necessary to define TSA from the perspective of “belief” that team members possess in other members’ SA in order to capture the dynamics of team cooperation. In this study, evaluation indexes of TSA from both perspectives were proposed and they were compared with team performance. The results suggest that it is necessary to evaluate team SA not only from the perspective of observers but also from the perspective of beliefs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baron-Cohen S (1997) Mindblindnes. MIT Press, London

  • Bolstad CA, Endsley MR (2000) The effect of task load and shared displays on team situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the 14th triennial congress of the international ergonomics association and the 44th annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 189–192

  • Cooke NJ, Stout RJ, Salas E (2001) A knowledge elicitation approach to the measurement of team situation awareness. In: McNeese M, Salas E, Endsley M (eds) New trends in cooperative activities: understanding system dynamics in complex environments. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 114–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson TL, McIntyre RM (1997) A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C (eds) Team performance assessment and measurement: theory, methods and applications. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1988) Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd annual meeting. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, pp 97–101

  • Endsley MR (1995) Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37:32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR, Jones WM (2001) A model of inter- and intrateam situation awareness: implications for design, training and measurement. In: McNeese M, Salas E, Endsley M (eds) New trends in cooperative activities: understanding system dynamics in complex environments. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 46–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiore SM, Salas E (2004) Why we need team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 235–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frith CD, Frith U (2006) The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron 50:531–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanno T (2007) The notion of sharedness based on mutual belief. In: Proceeding of 12th international conference on human–computer interaction. Springer, New York, pp 1347–1351

  • Kiekel PA, Cooke NJ (2004) Human factors aspects of team cognition. In: Proctor RW, Vu KL (eds) The handbook of human factors in web design. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 90–103

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan J, Paley MJ, Entin EB, Entin EE (2005) Questionnaires for distributed assessment of team mutual awareness. In: Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Henddrick H (eds) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Premack D, Woodruff G (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci 1(4):515–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Dickinson TL, Converse S, Tannenbaum SI (1992) Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: Swezey RW, Salas E (eds) Teams: their training and performance. Ablex, Norwood, pp 3–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Prince C, Baker PD, Shrestha L (1995) Situation awareness in team performance. Hum Factors 37:123–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu Y, Furuta K (2005) An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cogn Technol Work 7:272–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu Y, Goh T, Furuta K (2004) Experimental Methods for Assessment of Team Situation Awareness. In: Proceeding of cognitive systems engineering in process control, pp 140–147

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kohei Nonose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nonose, K., Kanno, T. & Furuta, K. An evaluation method of team situation awareness based on mutual belief. Cogn Tech Work 12, 31–40 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-008-0127-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-008-0127-y

Keywords

Navigation